I would argue that when sweeps are largely indiscriminate, and being in proximity to a raid is enough to end up in custody, so that the odds of "wrong place wrong time" greatly increase, it becomes a much stronger argument for not being in the US as a foreign national at all.

Mistakes may happen, but the nature of ICE detainments rises far above mere mistakes. The intent of the current system is to make the US sufficiently inhospitable to foreign nationals that they don't come. So, I take that point, and won't come. And by the looks of depressed visits since last year from my fellow countrymen, many of us are choosing that route.

I'm unlikely to ever visit the US again. My daughter and I had planned on going to Comic-Con at some point in the next year or two, and we both agree now that while the risk of detainment is rather low, it is non-zero. There are other places we can go, and being Canadian, there are plenty of places in our own country that we haven't seen.

You don't see a problem with being arrested by an immigration enforcement agency as a US citizen? You think that eventually being released is a meaningful remedy?

And if a US citizen can be detained by ICE, why the fuck would a foreigner want to come to the US?

It was the courts that halted the Keystone XL pipeline.

And that only applies (in theory...) to US citizens. The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non-citizens, which is what this issue is about.

So in other words, if the Democrats can adopt all the racist aspects of the GOP, but not the criminal aspects, you think the Dems will be great!

And Fetterman is basically a Republican.

Freedom was never the same after they banned five year olds from buy porn magazines.

And you answered the problem.

"Home computer users are here tomorrow."

They aren't going away. These companies can focus on the whales today secure in the knowledge that when the whales do die, they can just go back to relying on home computer users tomorrow. Home users can't go anywhere else, competitors aren't just going to pop up overnight and take away their business. And because of this, investors LOVE it.

The issue is that the companies that make RAM also need to report to their investors. So they have 2 options:

- Sell to the public and state "We made X profit this quarter"
Or
- Sell to the server market that will pay more to secure the RAM and state "We made X++ profit this quarter"

And when it's your job to make as much for their investors, which will you choose: to keep your job or be let go for someone else?

At least he's not a warmonger like Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris! - MAGA (up until six days ago)

>It's a laptop formfactor. Apple has not to date shipped a laptop formfactor device with iOS

Those are called iPads, with the magic keyboard case. They've been around for years, over a decade.

Morally and ethically, why should small polluters get off? It's not like GHG emissions from any source are that different. I get proportionality, but by what logic do you simply hand wave away small emitters?

>The phone maker who makes money off hardware, and not ads and surveillance, which inherently suck.

So, literally only Fairphone.

Whatever you think of their honesty, the phrase has a single meaning, which is "we're not going to do it" with the additional pretty obvious inference "because it is unethical".

Your post isn't merely pedantry, it's just willful denial of what ultimately is a very clear and unambiguous statement.

That's about 340 million people.